We apologize to our readers for having to read such strong racially charged language. In the interest of accuracy however, the statement needed to be printed in its entirety.

That said, the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) and Eric Holder, the most vociferous of the groups that oppose photo identification on the grounds that it racially discriminates, will certainly take umbrage to such a requirement.

Earlier this year the CBC announced on the house floor that “voter ID laws popping up around the country are aimed at dissuading minority voters from voting”. If that is the case, then the Democrats are clearly trying to dissuade minorities from attending their convention.

Just this past week, Holder backed up the charges of photo ID requirements as racist.

On Wednesday, Holder told a gathering of the Congressional Black Caucus that “both overt and subtle forms of discrimination remain all too common and have not yet been relegated to the pages of history.”

Holder continued:

“If a state passes a new voting law and meets its burden of showing that the law is not discriminatory, we will follow the law and will approve that change. … When a jurisdiction fails to meet its burden in proving that a voting change will not have a racially discriminatory effect, we will object, as we have in 15 different cases.”

Critics complain that Holder is taking an unabashedly, and unethically, political stance against voter ID laws.

Will Holder object in this case? With his having drawn a line in the sand, it is shocking to see his own party resort to such an ‘overt form of discrimination’.

The Congressional Black Caucus on Monday night took to the House floor to charge that voter ID laws popping up around the country are aimed at dissuading minority voters from voting, and making it harder for President Obama to win re-election.

Replace the word ‘minority’ with ‘illegal’ and the statement becomes more factual. But isn’t it astounding, that they are essentially admitting that the elimination of illegal votes would make ‘it harder for President Obama to win re-election’?

It continues…

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) added that supporters of these laws have made the “misrepresentation” that there was fraud in the 2008 election, “maybe because we elected the first African American president.”

Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) also drew a connection to these laws and Obama’s election, and said he’s not sure if the laws are being advanced due to “the color of the President” or because Obama “received record-breaking participation by the very same people that they’re making it difficult to vote.”

Rangel however, being from New York, should have immediately countered Jackson Lee’s comments; for there is no “misrepresentation” of voter fraud rather, it is an accepted political tactic in Rangel’s home state.Coincidentally, opening arguments have begun in an upstate New York ballot fraud case – a case that should demonstrate the urgent need for voter ID laws. In that case, Democrats openly admitted that “voter fraud is an accepted way of winning elections, and faking absentee ballots was commonplace” and “what appears as a huge conspiracy to nonpolitical persons is really a normal political tactic.”

That normal political tactic, possible only because of a lack of voter ID laws, has resulted in over 100 total charges for two Democrats, which include second-degree forgery, second-degree criminal possession of a forged instrument, and second-degree criminal possession.

Voter fraud – a normal political tactic that explicitly benefits the re-election of President Obama and the left.